USCA11 Case: 22-12540 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12540
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
OCEAN FRONT APARTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cv-10128-JLK
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12540 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12540
Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ocean Front Apartments, Inc. brought a single-claim com-
plaint against Wright National Flood Insurance Company for an
insurance adjustment on a building damaged by Hurricane Irma.
Fifteen months later, Ocean Front moved to amend its complaint
to add a second claim for another building damaged by the storm.
The district court denied Ocean Front’s motion to amend as un-
timely—and reaffirmed that reasoning in response to Ocean
Front’s motion for reconsideration. Ocean Front appeals those de-
cisions. We affirm.
We review a denial of leave to amend for abuse of discre-
tion. Garfield v. NDC Health Corp.,
466 F.3d 1255, 1270 (11th Cir.
2006). Amendments made more than 21 days after service of the
original pleading require the court’s leave, which “should be freely
give[n] . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
When ruling on leave to amend, a district court may consider five
factors: “(1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) re-
peated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue preju-
dice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amend-
ment, and (5) futility.” Blackburn v. Shire US Inc.,
18 F.4th 1310,
1317–18 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Forman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962)).
The district court here found Ocean Front’s motion un-
timely because it “sought leave to amend over fifteen months after
USCA11 Case: 22-12540 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 07/18/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12540 Opinion of the Court 3
the Complaint was filed.” That undue delay, it held, warranted
denying leave to amend.
Ocean Front spends much of its briefing on appeal arguing
that Wright was not prejudiced by the delayed amendment, or that
timeliness isn’t a concern because the amendment relates back to
the initial complaint. There are numerous problems with both ar-
guments, but we need not get into them. Prejudice and relation
back are irrelevant to the analysis here. “A district court need not
. . . allow an amendment where there has been undue delay.” Bry-
ant v. Dupree,
252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). The district
court was within its discretion to conclude that Ocean Front’s de-
lay in filing to amend was unduly delayed. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
